Will Your Cell Phone Kill You?

A Jewish approach to risk evaluation.

According to a recently released statement by the World Health Organization, radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer in humans. According to Jewish law, does that mean it is time to throw away your cell phone and return to using only landlines?

Every day, we face a myriad of potential health hazards, some certain and some questionable. We drive cars, play sports, eat junk food, and speak on cell phones. Some activities, such as pregnancy and childbirth are commonplace, but certainly present a component of significant risk. It is impossible to avoid some risk in our daily lives, but how much risk does the Torah permit one to take?

From a secular perspective, autonomy dictates that one may take as much risk as one wishes (so long as no one else is endangered and society will not have to care for the orphans created by one’s risky behavior). But the Torah instructs us to guard our health because the individual does not hold title to his body.

The Torah has several commandments related to personal safety. For instance, one must be proactive in eliminating preventable risks, such as building a parapet around any flat roof to prevent someone from falling and building a fence around a swimming pool.1 In addition to removing hazards, the Torah twice commands us to protect our health, safety and well-being.2 For example, the Talmud forbids walking near a shaky wall, for fear that it fall and injure the passerby.

Nevertheless, dangerous pursuits which involve risks accepted by the general population are permitted and therefore there is a subjective component to evaluating how much risk is acceptable. The Talmud asks in several places why certain potentially dangerous actions are permitted. It answers that a person need not avoid small risks that are accepted by the rest of normal society without undue concern. For instance, since automobile travel presents an element of danger, we might think that it should be forbidden. Nevertheless, driving a car is a risk accepted by society and most people do not give much thought to the danger. Therefore, driving with normal caution (such as wearing a seatbelt and using the turn signal) is permitted by Jewish law, despite the inherent small risk. The basis for this ruling is that while we may not take haphazard risks, we may go about our normal daily activities with the guarantee of Heavenly protection.3

Judaism recognizes the need to earn a living as a second mitigating factor in allowing risky behavior.4 There are many hazardous jobs that need to be done and if one takes adequate precautions, it is permissible to do these jobs, despite the risk involved.

The extent of risk that is acceptable in Jewish law is directly related to the significance of the benefit to be gained.

A third justification for taking a risk is more altruistic. Attempting to save the life or health of another person or oneself is another legal justification for risk-taking.5 While one is almost never required to enter even a questionably dangerous situation to save the life of another person,6 Judaism clearly encourages an individual to take a small degree of risk to help save his fellow. This is the justification for activities as invasive as live kidney donation7 and as mundane as a person attempting to save a drowning victim if he knows how to swim.8

The degree of risk that one may undertake is related to several criteria. For instance, the extent of risk that is acceptable in Jewish law is directly related to the significance of the benefit to be gained. One may only accept small, theoretical risks as part of one’s routine activities of daily living. The means of determining how small a risk must be to be considered acceptable is a general societal standard, not an objective statistical standard. To earn a livelihood, a greater degree of risk is acceptable. While most people will not personally accept the risk of painting a bridge or diving for pearls, the requirement for income is a pressing need that justifies the greater risk. Nevertheless, one must take all reasonable precautions and one may not perform an activity which has a high expectation of serious injury or death. Even saving the life of another justifies only limited risk-taking, due to the principle that one’s own life takes precedence over the life of one’s neighbor.9

But there is another consideration that must be taken into account before we consider disposing of our cell phones. Not all risks are created equal. Maimonides draws an interesting distinction in describing the severity of various types of risk in his monumental legal treatise, the Mishneh Torah.

He describes one type of risk that is the result of unhealthy long-term behavior, such as eating certain unhealthy foods.10 While he strongly advises that one never eat such foods, he does not declare them forbidden. In another section, he gives a list of acts that are forbidden because they are dangerous such as drinking uncovered water (for fear that a snake poisoned it), regardless of how many people drank safely from the water previously. The latter category is forbidden even though the probability of a dangerous outcome is remote.11

The reason why the two types of risk are treated differently revolves around the distinction between pre-existing risk and risk that increases over time. A risk which is already present, even if the risk is very small, is generally prohibited by Jewish law. Therefore, a food that has even a small chance of being poisoned is forbidden to be eaten because there is a chance that the poison is already present. This is akin to playing Russian roulette -- even if only one chamber in ten thousand contained a bullet, the presence of a bullet in the gun would likely scare off any person who values his life.

Yet, an activity or situation where there is only a statistical risk of danger, such as eating unhealthy food or engaging in repetitive stressful activities that may cause disability over time,12 are not forbidden, because the risk is cumulative, with no individual item or action containing any significant danger. This is intuitive, as even a very health conscious person might be willing to eat a fatty steak on rare occasions because he rightfully believes the danger of such food is related to the quantity and frequency of ingestion and that an individual, unwholesome steak is not dangerous. If he eats even unhealthy food in moderation, the risk is small and acceptable.

While cell phones may present an increased risk of brain tumors, Jewish law would be unlikely to ban their use.

Therefore, Jewish law would forbid the game of Russian roulette because of the present danger, but would only discourage the unhealthy food because no individual piece of meat presents a danger.

We may now put our cell phones in perspective. While cell phones may present an increased risk of brain tumors, Jewish law would be unlikely to ban their use. The use of cell phones is ubiquitous and the theoretical risks are thus far accepted by the overwhelming majority of society.13 Additionally, there is no pre-existing danger as no individual call presents a significant threat. It is not the use of the cell phone that is dangerous; it is the excessive use of the cell phone near the ear that presents the problem.

So while Judaism takes great interest in protecting life and health, Jewish legal experts are very unlikely to ban cell phones, but instead encourage their prudent use. It is wise to reduce radiation exposure by keeping the cell phone as far from the body as possible14 (preferably utilizing a wired earpiece or speakerphone to decrease radiation exposure), limiting the length of phone calls,15 and minimizing use in locations with weak signals where the phone increases radiation in its attempt to contact the tower. This approach fits in well with the Jewish value of encouraging a normal lifestyle with a sensible approach to risk.

The concept is derived from the statement in the book of Psalms (116:6): "God watches over the simple." (Shabbat 129b; Yevamot 71b. See also Avodah Zarah 30b; Nidah 31a and 45a; Ketubot 39a; Yevamot 12b).

Baba Metzia 62a. The basis for the fundamental principles guiding how much risk one may take to save someone else is discussed in two 16th century responsa of Rabbi David ben Solomon ibn Avi Zimra (Radbaz). The Radbaz establishes that one is obligated to undertake at least a small degree of danger to save one who is endangered, but that if the degree of danger approaches 50%, one is a pious fool for risking his life. See Responsa Radbaz, Vol. 3:627 (1052) and 5:318 (1582).

Note that if the pitcher were a professional baseball player, there may be more latitude to undertake such risk since it is a component of his profession.

This utilizes the concept of "God watches over the simple" discussed above.

Both the Apple iPhone 4 safety manual and Blackberry Bold instructions recommend keeping the devices at a minimum of a certain distance from the body during use.

“[A] study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, revealed radiation emitted after just 50 minutes on a mobile phone increases the activity in brain cells. The effects of brain activity being artificially stimulated are still unknown.” WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk by Danielle Dellorto, CNN, May 31, 2011.

Related Articles:

About the Author

Dr. Daniel Eisenberg is with the Department of Radiology at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, PA and an Assistant Professor of Diagnostic Imaging at Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine. He has taught a Jewish medical ethics class for the past 15 years. Dr. Eisenberg writes extensively on topics of Judaism and medicine and lectures internationally on topics in Jewish medical ethics to groups of all backgrounds. Obtain more information on scheduling a lecture or learning more about Jewish medical ethics by visiting Dr. Eisenberg at www.daneisenberg.com

Visitor Comments: 13

(8)
Josh,
June 26, 2011 6:15 AM

Cancer cured..

Google these two words and see what you come up with.There are a myrad of cures.. like b17, thc.
Why they are are not known, and why the cancer rate of 1 in a100 at the turn of the century, has turned too 1 in 8 is another story!!!

Anonymous,
June 29, 2011 2:58 PM

ambient toxins...

like radiation and environmental poisons have been identified as a likely source for increased cancer rates- as well as many forms of auto-immune illnesses. the more ambient radiation and poison we are exposed to- the more illness we attract.

(7)
Mark Alan Johnston,
June 25, 2011 7:46 PM

Torah is the FINAL authority!

Who are you going to believe--the Torah (God), or the WHO? As for me, I believe what the Torah says, because the Torah is GOD's opinion and final authority on all issues of life! Whoever accepts the WHO's opinion on serious health issues of any kind (cell phones notwithstanding) over God's Word on health issues, is a FOOL! Who do you think created science in the first place! Let God and His Word, the Torah, be true, and every man a liar.

(6)
Joe,
June 23, 2011 8:17 AM

It is not physically possible for your cell phone to harm you.

The Torah commentary here is great. However the WHO report - if that is being understood correctly is simply wrong because the result is physically impossible. The issue is energy conservation.
Fact: cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer. Cancer agents break chemical bonds, creating mutant strands of DNA. Microwave photons cannot break chemical bonds in DNA.
They just don't have enough energy.
End of story.

Judith Goldstein,
June 29, 2011 2:55 PM

ICW is not a natural wavelength...

the damaging component of cell phone radiation is the "information carrying wavelength." this is not the wavelength that HaShem gave us and our bodies' threat this energy as a foreign entity. cell membranes are toughtned to prevent entry and thereby prevent nutrition from entering and toxins from exiting. this radiation also causes inflammation. WHO cited heavy use over time as the danger, likening it to tobacco use or asbestos- the impact will not be fully felt for another decade or two. overall, cellphone radiation [and computer and other man-made un-natural forms of energy] impair the body's immune system and contribute to disease- specifically to tissue immediately adjacent to the source.

Joe,
July 3, 2011 1:03 AM

This is simply ridiculous

First of all, there is no such thing as an "unnatural" wavelength. The electromagnetic spectrum, is a continuum. It is all natural and all made by Hashem. Stars and other astronomical objects for example emit radiation in this band (gigahertz) all the time. The issue is one of energy conservation. Either there is enough energy to do the job or there isn't. For example, a spitball can not knock down a house. There is just not enough energy. The wavelengths involved with cell phone transmissions correspond to photons of a certain energy. Those photons simply are not energetic enough to break the chemical bonds in DNA. They also do not have the energy to cause membranes to
toughen" in any way either. By what magical mechanism do you suggest that happens? This is nature. This is how nature works. As to "being natural" automatically implying something is a good thing, this is also ridiculous. Getting eaten by a bear is natural. So is hemlock, cyanide, bubonic plague and freezing to death... I am very tired of so many people commenting on basic scientific issues - as if they were authorities - without bothering to learn the science involved. It is rather annoyingly like a child lecturing a Talmudist by the tact of misquoting a bad translation of a mishna.
Joseph Harris, Ph.D. (physics)

(5)
johnnyodee,
June 21, 2011 1:54 PM

Cell-phone dangers

I found David's article very interesting, informative and relevant. As one who has chosen not to own a cell phone on account of the risk, I have studied both sides of the argument quite closely over the years. When cell phones were first introduced, many reports were published from many sources including magazines published by consumer councils. Independent studies carried out in various countries have found evidence to support the evidence of significant health risks. In the UK there have been suggestons of banning their use in schools, children being particularly at risk. Over time, although the studies continued to be carried out, the findings ceased to be made public. This is certainly not surprising since the industry is worth billions and so it is quite obvious that silence over these matters would be the obvious outcome. On average, the danger of hazardous materials or activities taskes about 30 years to become proven, such as the case of tobacco or asbestos. Cell phones have not been around that long. Give it time.
As a secondary issue, how does Jewish law regard the use of cell phones whilst driving a car, thereby risking the lives of others?

(4)
Mark Borosh,
June 21, 2011 1:49 PM

The risk should NEVER be acceptable under ANY law

"While cell phones may present an increased risk of brain tumors, Jewish law would be unlikely to ban their use" - tell that to a kid whose father has just lost his battle with brain cancer. A father who was well respected in the shule. Tell THEM that Jewish law accepts the risk. I cannot look them in the eye and do this.

Elisheva,
June 22, 2011 6:27 PM

strong emotional argument, but not logically convincing

You would have the same problem justifying driving a car, or even crossing the street. They also both carry risks that can be devastating, but the alternative-- starving at home, becoming a recluse, etc-- is not acceptable, either.
Although it is terribly sad, it's not a logical argument for the side that Judaism should ban the use of cell-phones. There is a middle of the road for everything. And there isn't proof that every brain tumor (or one person's in particular) is caused by cell phone usage. Brain tumors existed before cell phone usage was common. And there are infants, r"l, who have never touched cell phones, who are diagnosed with brain tumors all the time.

(3)
Anonymous,
June 21, 2011 12:31 PM

New Insight? Phew.

The conclusion (or P'sak), notwithstanding the detailed halachic analysis, is precisely what the W.H.O. and other reasonable scientists who have weighed in on the topic have recommended. While certainly a scholarly exercise, I wonder whether every bit of health-related news need be put through the meat grinder to get to the same (obvious) conclusion - thankfully. I can't help but shudder (or cringe?) at what would result if this "analysis" would have found that it's okay to continue using your cell-phones as before.

(2)
Avi Kane,
June 21, 2011 12:22 PM

Smoking

Is smoking a statistical risk or a constant risk? If the latter, the author points out that Torah law forbids it. BTW, I don't smoke; I just never thought about the distinction between statistical versus constant risk and their halachic implications.

Anonymous,
June 22, 2011 6:31 PM

every single cigarette does damage

It's not just cumulative-- every single cigarette does damage. Plus, the affect of 2nd hand smoke on the people around the smoker. So I would think that it is forbidden.
(Also, note that there is an addiction involved here-- so even if it was a buildup, it's not like one can just "stop anytime" along the way. The first leads to the next, etc.)

(1)
Jack,
June 19, 2011 7:58 AM

Excellent analysis

Thanks I really appreciated the in depth analysis of a pressinng issue. I know we can always rely on Aish.com to deal with hot topics.
Sent from my Blackberry, please excuse speling mistakes

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...